Courts can deny anticipatory bail if accused may tamper with evidence or abscond: HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that the exception to the general rule of bail, not jail, must be carved out in cases where the accused may abscond, threaten witnesses, or tamper with evidence. The court clarified that the antecedents of the accused, coupled with the probability of such actions, weigh heavily against the grant of anticipatory bail in such matters.

“The general rule, put tersely, may be of bail, no jail. However, a just exception may be taken where there are circumstances which might thwart the course of justice. The antecedents of the accused or the probability of the accused fleeing, intimidating witnesses or tampering with the evidence, inter alia, weigh in heavy before the court when dealing with a petition for the grant of anticipatory bail,” Justice Kirti Singh of the high court ruled.

The bench made the observations while dismissing an anticipatory bail plea filed by a man accused of harassing and assaulting his wife, in a case registered at Amritsar. Among other things, the petitioner had argued that he was falsely implicated in the matrimonial dispute, with allegations of physical assault levelled against him after a delay of more than nine days.

The case has its genesis in the FIR alleging harassment and physical assault. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the injuries were self-inflicted by the complainant-wife to pressurise the petitioner in the context of a matrimonial dispute and that a petition for divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion had already been filed.

Justice Kirti Singh, however, rejected the plea, holding that the nature of the allegations—prima facie involving beatings resulting in four injuries, including one grievous— might warrant custodial interrogation to unearth the “true dimension” of the alleged occurrence.

“Prima facie, there are serious allegations against the petitioner of harassing the complainant and giving her beatings. As per the complainant-wife’s medico-legal report, four injuries were found on her person, one of which was declared grievous in nature. Therefore, this court is not inclined to grant the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the present case,” the court observed.

The ruling is significant as the court has made it clear that personal liberty is a cherished right, but bail is not to be granted mechanically in every case. The courts are required to weigh the likelihood of the accused fleeing, intimidating witnesses, or tampering with evidence. Anticipatory bail can be justly denied, if such risks are found.